Stop & Frisk
The practice of stop and frisk first began with Terry vs. Ohio. The Fourth Amendment had long required that uniformed officers have probable cause in order to conduct Fourth Amendment invasions in order to administer a reasonable search and seizure. In 1968 the Warren Court, despite its liberal reputation lowered the standards that police officers had to meet. In order to conduct a certain type of search this is now known as “stop’ and ‘frisk. A "stop and frisk" occurs when a uniformed or plain clothed officer, deems a suspect as being armed and dangerous. The officer stops the suspect, conducts an interrogation, and then proceeds by patting the individual down for weapons, illegal contraband, and drugs. The purpose of a frisk …show more content…
Stop and frisk searches sometimes are unsuccessful in catching potential criminals. However, proponents of the stop and frisk program believe it’s a successful crime deterrent. The practice of stop and frisk has sparked a large amount of controversy amongst the police and the general public. The NYPD should not be able to proceed any further with the practice of stop and frisk. The program directly violates the people’s Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure. It has also increased the public animosity towards NYPD, and also promotes racial discrimination in police officers. According to research and statistics I would have to disagree with the statement “stop and frisk is a successful crime deterrent”. These searches are violating the people’s Fourth Amendment rights against improper search and seizure, the practice itself is looked upon as being ineffective by community activist, judges, and the New York City …show more content…
The use of “Stop and Frisk” has caused an array of problems between the community and police officers. Residents do not feel comfortable approaching an officer or even asking for assistance where they may actually need an officer’s assistance. For example, “My jeans were ripped. I had bruises on my face. My whole face was swollen. I was sent to the precinct for disorderly conduct. I got out two days later, the charges were dismissed. I felt like I couldn’t defend myself, didn’t know what to do. There were no witnesses present to see what was going on. I just wish someone was there to witness it. I felt like no one would believe me. I felt as if I couldn’t tell anyone. I still am scared”. The public has begun speaking out against the New York City Police Department. Although, the public has not broken out into numerous amounts of riots, they have shown their contempt with nonviolent protest around the city. A silent protest was held by thousands of people and civil rights groups walking through the streets of New York with signs showing that they are against the stop and frisk program. Even though the protest was silent, people began to clash with officers attempting to stop the protest. Which resulted in a small amount of arrests. The residents of New York City (NYC) is upset with the NYPD and government officials.
The practice of stop and frisk first began with Terry vs. Ohio. The Fourth Amendment had long required that uniformed officers have probable cause in order to conduct Fourth Amendment invasions in order to administer a reasonable search and seizure. In 1968 the Warren Court, despite its liberal reputation lowered the standards that police officers had to meet. In order to conduct a certain type of search this is now known as “stop’ and ‘frisk. A "stop and frisk" occurs when a uniformed or plain clothed officer, deems a suspect as being armed and dangerous. The officer stops the suspect, conducts an interrogation, and then proceeds by patting the individual down for weapons, illegal contraband, and drugs. The purpose of a frisk …show more content…
Stop and frisk searches sometimes are unsuccessful in catching potential criminals. However, proponents of the stop and frisk program believe it’s a successful crime deterrent. The practice of stop and frisk has sparked a large amount of controversy amongst the police and the general public. The NYPD should not be able to proceed any further with the practice of stop and frisk. The program directly violates the people’s Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure. It has also increased the public animosity towards NYPD, and also promotes racial discrimination in police officers. According to research and statistics I would have to disagree with the statement “stop and frisk is a successful crime deterrent”. These searches are violating the people’s Fourth Amendment rights against improper search and seizure, the practice itself is looked upon as being ineffective by community activist, judges, and the New York City …show more content…
The use of “Stop and Frisk” has caused an array of problems between the community and police officers. Residents do not feel comfortable approaching an officer or even asking for assistance where they may actually need an officer’s assistance. For example, “My jeans were ripped. I had bruises on my face. My whole face was swollen. I was sent to the precinct for disorderly conduct. I got out two days later, the charges were dismissed. I felt like I couldn’t defend myself, didn’t know what to do. There were no witnesses present to see what was going on. I just wish someone was there to witness it. I felt like no one would believe me. I felt as if I couldn’t tell anyone. I still am scared”. The public has begun speaking out against the New York City Police Department. Although, the public has not broken out into numerous amounts of riots, they have shown their contempt with nonviolent protest around the city. A silent protest was held by thousands of people and civil rights groups walking through the streets of New York with signs showing that they are against the stop and frisk program. Even though the protest was silent, people began to clash with officers attempting to stop the protest. Which resulted in a small amount of arrests. The residents of New York City (NYC) is upset with the NYPD and government officials.